Such as passionate topic, but I don't buy into it. Instead of high altitude spraying, why not just shoot it out of automobiles or factories? Speaking
of factories, why is it that someone who believes in chemtrails can completely ignore the pollution and carcinogens being generated by factories and
plants every hour of every day, yet when they see a contrail in the sky they are convinced that is why the are getting sick?

And how do the people who order the chemtrails avoid being exposed to the effects?

I wish I could help you, but I'm not qualified to answer because I'm not a chemtrailer.

Ah, semantics - the last refuge of the low-evidence theorist.

Yes "chemtrails exist" because water is a chemical, case closed!

Yes "UFOs are real", because not all flying objects are identified, case closed!

Yes "Aliens exist", I saw some climbing over the Mexico border, case closed!

Yes, "9/11 was a conspiracy", because the people flying the plane conspired to do so, case closed!

Words do not mean just what you want them to mean, especially words that are not in the dictionary. The meaning of words is defined by their usage and
context. You know what "chemtrailer" means, you're just playing word games to try to avoid answering the question. The case does not close because
you force a narrow interpretation on the words, an interpretation you know full well is not shared by the others in the conversation.

Don't you WANT to present a solid case? Consider if you ever want to get people to believe you, say in court, or newspaper reporters, then you are
going to have to be able to defend you case from exactly the same points you are trying to avoid here.

See it as practice, a refinement of your evidence which will only make it stronger. Try to make a case.

I have tried this quite a few times and it always ends up the same. I think what I am trying to do will help everyone involved. It will either unify
the theory, or make the person think enough about his/her answers that they have to at least question their logic.

Without evidence the back up the conspiracy of course every believer has a different take - just like any other theory for which there is no evidence
- such as god and afterlife for example - every believer alters it to suit their own perceptions, prejudices, wish fulfillment.

This is not unexpected, and not really indicative of anything other than the lack of actual evidence, and IMO it is the later that is important - not
he symptoms of it.

Ok so in any theory there's always going to be two sides to the argument as usual. But to say one side is wrong and the other is right without clear
proof either way is just a never ending battle. They say chemtrails are real and they're spraying us from above. There's multiple theories as to why.
Some say they're spraying aluminum to help reflect the suns rays from the other to help global warming. Some say it's a form of creating clouds to do
the same thing (I personally would just throw this one out because an overcast makes the suns rays worse), and then you have that they're spraying to
infect us and make us sick. Ok so if this is indeed true which wouldn't surprise me either way because the government does things that clearly aren't
right all the time then there has to be some evidence somewhere out there right?

The one thing that bugs me is this. Almost all larger airplanes leave a trail. The difference i've noticed personally is airliners leave trails that
disappear as the plane moves across the sky. Some military jets do the same thing. Now there's also unmarked planes that i've personally seen that
leave trails and they stay in the sky and spread out all day which forms that haze or cloud like look in the sky. Anyway... I think the best solution
to this issue is to effing look at the planes through binoculars or a telescope. If the planes are spraying you'd clearly see the mist coming out of
the sides of the plane I would think. Wouldn't that make more since than to argue back and forth about who's crazy and who's not?

So, on that site www.thetruthsource.org there's tons of more posts about chemtrails. Maybe watching more of the video's and reading posts would help
to identify truth from fiction?

Such as passionate topic, but I don't buy into it. Instead of high altitude spraying, why not just shoot it out of automobiles or factories?
Speaking of factories, why is it that someone who believes in chemtrails can completely ignore the pollution and carcinogens being generated by
factories and plants every hour of every day, yet when they see a contrail in the sky they are convinced that is why the are getting sick?

Tell me about it. Every time I point out that automobiles are deadlier than anything chemtrailers think is going on, they refuse to listen. They never
volunteer to give up their cars and trucks. Until they are prepared to make that sacrifice, their "chemtrail campaign" is pure hypocrisy.

Seems all of those links to your other ATS posts primarily reference the same PDF. A paper on the study of a multitude of possible
methods to be undertaken one day, in the event the situation becomes so dire that emergency intervention of that sort is deemed vital.

However, the paper is peppered throughout with the admonitions that such meddling could have disastrous, and unintended side-effects, and that much
more study is needed before attempting to implement any of them. Unless, as already mentioned, it becomes so necessary as to be the "lesser of two
evils", and likely for the sake of Humanity's continued existence on the planet.

(I don't think we are anywhere near that condition, yet).

The problem with so much of this "chemtrail" hysteria is the way people will find articles and studies in papers of that sort, and simply focus on
the "trigger" words in them, without reading fully and comprehensively what is actually being "said".

People seem to miss important key phrases and words, like "possible" and "potential" and "would contribute to", etc.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.